Search

Prime Minister and Minister for Women Tony Abbott yesterday claimed that criticisms of his Chief of Staff, Peta Credlin, are “sexist.” His observation followed reports that relations between Ms Credlin and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop have soured, leading to them being described by one frontbencher as “two Siamese fighting fish in the same tank.”

The frontbencher didn’t mention the gender of the fighting fish.

It’s hilarious to hear Tony Abbott accuse his own party of sexism. It can’t even be taken seriously enough to be given the label hypocrisy. It’s a blatant attempt to adopt principles the man simply does not have and never will. Abbott has still to grasp that he has no credibility, and no amount of politically correct language co-option is going to give it to him.

There’s nothing he can say about finally contributing to the UN Green Climate Fund, “sweating blood” for constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians, or protecting women from sexism that will provoke anything in the community but scoffing guffaws.

Abbott has left his run for decency far too late. His dire unpopularity seems to be causing a spin-doctored rethink in his politics, however, it’s painfully evident that any rethink is not a change of heart, but a superficial shift of attitude designed to haul his sorry arse out of the sinkhole of public contempt in which it has become increasingly mired.

Bob Ellis picked it right and its a thought Ive had once or twice also.

Its this captive virgin thing with Abbott, Credlin is described as Abbott’s “Giant Nubian body servant” and combs the little boy’s hair before an appearance.

Abbott is far more a “girl” than Credlin willl ever be and Credlin is a cupcake, sour cream filling not withstanding and Ive come to the conclusion that even Credlin is more interesting than the catatonic Monk who whinges about Opposition “sexism” after treating not just Gillard but a whole section of women badly over several decades.

The relationship between Credlin and Abbott is certainly very interesting, and I don’t mean in a prurient way, which is after all probably the least interesting aspect. The complex interdependencies would be fascinating to know and to unravel.

There are certain women Abbott is willing to regard as equals, and worthy of occupying senior roles. He has called Peta Credlin the “fiercest political warrior” he has known, while Julie Bishop continues to deny that feminism has any relevance to her and that she “always has been, always will be” blind to gender.

The problem is not that these women project strong “masculine” traits. The problem is that there is no place in Abbott’s world view for either women or men who possess different qualities and characteristics.

This government will be unable to escape from its current pattern of authoritarian, confrontational, combative politics so long as it remains a projection of Abbott’s beliefs and personality. There can be no compassion for asylum seekers while compassion is regarded as a sign of weakness. There can be no quarter given to the needs of the less fortunate in our society while doing so is the act of an “economic girly-man”. There can be no admission that a GP co-payment hurts those in most need of care while the amount involved is less than the cost of a cigar, or two beers. Freedom of the press and the people’s right to know what is done in our name will never trump national security in a James Bond world where shadowy bad guys can be countered only by shadowy good guys.

Of course men and women are “different”. It is trite to say that people are not all the same, or that gender is a factor in difference. But the Abbott government lacks a “feminine side”. It cannot, therefore, be truly representative of Australian society, or build real consensus in the community.

Reading between the lines, I suspect the Parliamentary Libs are being pilloried for their abject failure in bringing the budget back to surplus, and this from very cashed up private supporters of their own kind. In that context, almost all Government expenditure is in play and the potential cross hairs – compassion, fairness, justice, equality don’t even get a seat at the table as criteria and will only re-emerge as potential factors at the post electoral wound licking comiseration party.

I get Mark Summerfield’s point… he identifies the problem as not being with feminism or other forms of social reformism, but with the government’s current problematic mindset, revealed in the strange way the government responds to human issues and especially, female issues.

It is an ultraist government, deeply absorbed in its own sense of entitledness and divine right to rule at whim as a privilege bestowed upon it simply for being what it is.